JsT and Omen try to get along

[Omen]

I'll try.  First of all, you're really smart, and you're really educated, which are completely different things.  Among your early interactions with Jst, you took single sentences and phrases that he had written, and wrote paragraph-length responses, often using complex vocabulary.  And, (please correct me if I am wrong) I think that you assumed that Jst was another apologetic, rather than a JW. 

I make no assumptions as to whom or what a person is, either they are capable of supporting their position or not.

In other words, you didn't seem to be aware of "who" this person you were attacking was.  You didn't seem to be aware of, or didn't care about the fact that Jst had self-identified as someone with little formal education, and was of a particular sect of Christianity that is not common here on this forum.

The 'who' invites what I consider condescending qualifications that are, in my eyes, more insulting initially to the person you're responding too.  It is sort of like saying I should wait to see if he's a moron before I begin deconstructing what he's claiming.

I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt and just roll with it.

I also object to 'attack', why is responding to someone through a means of formal rebuttal an 'attack'?

The term is loaded ( burdened ) with emotional nonsense that only serves to obscure the discussion.

You had, at your disposal, a wide range of arguments ready to rip apart his words, and a format and style he was not familiar with.  In addition, you've got an aggressive personality and debate style.  You demanded that he play by a set of rules that he was not familiar with, and you fired out arguments that you are very familiar with, but which, I think, he was hearing for the first time. 

I am aggressive, but I do not apologize for it because there is nothing wrong with it.  As far as whether or not he's educated enough, again I think that is initially condescending to him.  You're placing him in the category of being an absolute moron and I don't believe any of my responses require that much of a education to respond too.

Plus, there is a second problem, if he really didn't know initially.. or had never heard of any of it, he could have simply said so.  Which initially, that seemed to be the case in the questioning evolution when he backed off from his dishonesty when he was initially talking about science.  Yet, that didn't last long until he was back to the same dogmatic nonsense.

This is not the strongest explanation, but I'm half in front of the screen and half putting my daughter back to bed over and over.

Please see reply #70 on the Xian C thread in the Atheist Corner. Another forum member used stronger language than I did to describe the welcome you gave him.

70 doesn't specify any problems.

Why complaining because one person is obviously not equipped to win a debate?

[Omen]

So you justify calling me a lieing, mentally ill, sicko?

Is this your subjective morality at work?

You have lied.   You lied for the benefit of promoting a religious belief.  If you did not lie, then why did you claim to have studied evolution when you clearly never had?

I've never called you mentally ill.  What are we supposed to do when you refuse to support your own arguments in a manner that allows us to distinguish your claims from being mentally ill, the claims of another religious person, or make believe?

You compared biblical slavery, where it is ok to rape your slaves and beat your slaves to death ( as long as they don't die immediately ), to raising children.  Do you think beating children to death ( as long as they don't die immediately ) or raping your children is sick?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You know after thinking about it I think you either demonstrate the qualities of a teenager or a sociopath. 

You seem to know everything and can find absolutely no wrong in your own actions and you demonstrate not a drop of empathy.  Maybe you are the one that is mentally ill.

[ParkingPlaces]

You compared horrific biblical slavery to raising children.

I described what I do and there is nothing "sicko" about it.  You were simply being hostile.

You were responding by comparing biblical slavery, in an analogy, to raising your children.

I pointed out, and referenced biblical verse to support me, that in biblical slavery you can beat your slave almost to death.. and as long as the slave doesn't die for a couple days then you are free from being punished.

I then pointed out that your analogy was sick and asked you how could you make such a horrific analogy.

I would like to use this as an example.

As I remember the exchange, you did the biblical reference and name calling in one post. This gave Jst no time to adjust any of his naive thoughts about how wonderful slavery used to be into something more realistic. He had to go from thinking it was like a minimum wage job with free room and board to being told it was much more horrible than that, and that he was automatically one of the three worst people in the world because of it.

I don't know who in his life to blame for keeping him out of the loop about how biblical slavery wasn't any more impressive than the Alabama kind, but a little time to acclimate to reality might have helped.

What he remembers now is the name calling, not the lesson.

That's the sort of thing that didn't work. Have we tried patience yet? My version of patience, not yours.

Mine is close to infinite. It is often used as an example in math textbooks. 

P.S. I guess some of us are commenting on this because we don't dislike Jst at all. And there is a huge disconnect between that attitude and your POV.

My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I agree with him on nothing. But we're still friends. And when we do talk religion, we keep it quite civil.

Also, I have no expectations that he'll ever figure out why I disagree.

And Jst, this might be a good time for you to take a break of something. Your last post, no matter how heart-felt, didn't help your case.

[Omen]

You know after thinking about it I think you either demonstrate the qualities of a teenager or a sociopath. 

You seem to know everything and can find absolutely no wrong in your own actions and you demonstrate not a drop of empathy.  Maybe you are the one that is mentally ill.

Let me know when you can reference in specific examples.

[Quesi]

I make no assumptions as to whom or what a person is, either they are capable of supporting their position or not. 

You ask people to support their position immediately.  I like to know who they are and what they believe and why they believe it first. 

 
The 'who' invites what I consider condescending qualifications that are, in my eyes, more insulting initially to the person you're responding too.  It is sort of like saying I should wait to see if he's a moron before I begin deconstructing what he's claiming.

I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt and just roll with it.

Interesting.  I in no way consider "the who" to be condescending.  People are complex, and before I start dismantling their core belief systems, I'd like to know what circumstances influenced the development of those belief systems. 

  I also object to 'attack', why is responding to someone through a means of formal rebuttal an 'attack'?

The term is loaded ( burdened ) with emotional nonsense that only serves to obscure the discussion.

You are right.  I use emotionally loaded language.  I know I do not have to invite you to call me on it if/when I do it again. 

 
I am aggressive, but I do not apologize for it because there is nothing wrong with it.  As far as whether or not he's educated enough, again I think that is initially condescending to him.  You're placing him in the category of being an absolute moron and I don't believe any of my responses require that much of a education to respond too. 

Absolutely not.  I said that you were both smart and educated.  I think that Jst is smart, but not familiar with the concept of rational thought.  He hasn't had practice developing logical arguments.  He stated that he was initially intimidated by some of the vocabulary used on this forum.  He later stated that he does not know how to summarize a complex set of concepts in his own words - not because he is incapable, but because it is a skill he has not developed.   I think that he adapted to the style of debate on this forum with astounding speed, and navigated a complex set of arguments quite effectively.  I would have rather seen the speed of the discussion go a little slower, with more room for reflection.  But you set a fast pace of challenges to respond and clarify and define and defend. 

 
70 doesn't specify any problems.

I didn't suggest that it did!  I think it was said rather affectionately.  (loaded emotional language again)  I just said that the language was stronger than mine. 

I'm probably not going to reply here again this evening because I have some housework to do, and then I'm going to peek at the othe threads and crash.  But i did want to say a couple more things. 

I'm relatively new here, and I certainly defer to the style and culture that was established on this forum by those of you who've been here longer than I have.  However, I have to say that it sort of irks me when a theist arrives and quite a few members of this forum immediately start setting traps (that are easy to set, given the nature of the scriptures) and then start calling the theist a liar for using a reflex response to contradictions or atrocities in the scriptures. 

I don't think that Jst thinks that he is a liar.  I think he, like most theists, has spent a lifetime being taught to gloss over or rationalize the contradictions and atrocities.  And shortly after he arrived on the forum, when I asked him a "bible study" question that he could not answer, he actually went and followed up and provided an explanation that I had never heard before.   I appreciated that. 

Omen - ideologically, I am on your side too.  And I am awed by your ability to dismantle the arguments of your opponent.  I'd love to see you in a live debate. 

Temperamentally, I lean towards a different set of interactions. 

Jst-I'll chat with you another day.  As I'm sure you know, responding to Omen requires a lot of energy.   

[Omen]

I would like to use this as an example.

Probably because it is the only example you can find.

As I remember the exchange, you did the biblical reference and name calling in one post.

Just to point something out, there are 274 posts, between my first response to JST to the post where you say I'm 'name calling'.

All the question dodging, all the equivocating, the red herrings, the dismissals.. 274 posts.

And your criticism rests upon 'sicko', for pointing out that someone compared how they raised their children to biblical slavery as if it were perfectly ok ( and syonymous ).

This gave Jst no time to

There is no reason to make accomodations for someone who makes claims as if they've read the bible when they clearly have not.   They clearly have never invested the time to read it, which invites the question of dishonesty.

What he remembers now is the name calling, not the lesson.

He's had hundreds of posts to respond prior to this, minus name calling, where he has consistently avoided supporting his own claims.  Again, I am judged for a single post out of hundreds, and he is.. seemingly completely innocent of his actions in your eyes?

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

I agree with him on nothing. But we're still friends. And when we do talk religion, we keep it quite civil.

And you get no where, I've had him admit that he didn't know what he's talking about regarding evolution and then admit that he is afraid of confronting the validity of his own beliefs.

What do you know? That he can mindlessly tell you what he believes without telling you why rationally?

What is that going to do ?

Also, I have no expectations that he'll ever figure out why I disagree.

Neither do I, but it doesn't take much effort to respond and ask him a question.  He obviously knows enough to selectively ignore the more damning challenges to his own claims, hence his resulting equivocating and constant denial of very specific issues.

[Azdgari]

Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?

[ParkingPlaces]

My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

I did not write those words to dehumanize you. I was telling you that it is possible to have civil intercourse and live on the same planet with theists, even when huge disagreements exist. If you took it as an insult of any sort, I apologize. Here I am, trying to ask people if there might be a way to be nicer to each other and accomplish more in our conversations, and I insult you in the process. Hopefully the answer isn't contained in my incompetence.

[Traveler]

Stepping in briefly to bookmark the conversation, to say that I believe jst deserves some time and patience, and to say that its very, very easy in here to get overwhelmed, to get overwrought, and to misunderstand each other. I have NOT had the bandwidth to keep up with the conversation between Omen and Jstwebbrowsing, but in the posts I have seen, I have not interpreted Jst's words as ill-meaning by any stretch. I see someone who's trying to discuss, who's curious, and who is not at all used to the type of debate that some here on wwgha demand.

Hang in there ...

[kin hell]

is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.
I reckon arguing anything about the "offence" is pointless, as each have opposed views.
I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

If Omen can swallow his perception of injustice (in that he believes he gave no specific offence) and retract anything that empowers Jst's feeling offended, then the ball is back with Jst in that he will have no further reason (real or imagined) to not address the forums requirements of substantiating claims with evidence.   

[One Above All]

I promised myself I'd stay out of stuff like this, but fuck it.

is it possible for a reset?
<snip>

Jstwebbrowsing engaged myself (IIRC) and others in a discussion regarding evolution. He claimed to have no knowledge of evolution or abiogenesis and, in spite of dozens, if not hundreds, of posts explaining the difference between the two, he just didn't seem to understand any of it. Now, unless he actually is retarded, that's just not possible. He didn't say that he doubted our claims. He just continued to discuss it as if it hadn't been explained to him. Later he admitted that he was lying (check his karma log for the specific post) and that he did, in fact, know the difference between the two.

This is not a person who deserves anything but distrust. He is a liar. Plain and simple. His claims of offence and such should be treated as if coming from any other liar - they should be dismissed.

So no, kin hell. It is not possible for a reset. Not only is that literally impossible (people's memories can't be reset, and they will let their emotions get the better of them, eventually), but he doesn't deserve it.

[kin hell]

^fair enough

I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

So I will not comment.

[One Above All]

Jstwebbrowsing, you've got three choices here, AFAICT. Either you accept the fact that lying damages your reputation (and since you had none here, that's basically the same as saying that those who remember your lies don't trust you) and try to fix it by being honest from now on or you keep whining that everyone is being mean to you and get sympathy from the members who seem to have forgotten your lies (or never read them in the first place). The third option would be for you to leave.

Personally, I'm OK with the first and last ones. If you are honest, I'm sure a lot of information can be exchanged (although the exchange might not be "50/50", so to speak). If you decide to leave, there will be more of you. There is nothing you can say that I[1] can't learn from other sources. It's just a matter of time.

1.	Remember, this is just on a personal level. I do not and cannot speak for the forum.

[One Above All]

I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into consideration, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?

1.	The discussion.

[kin hell]

I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into account, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?

1.	The discussion.

ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.
I wasn't judging the legitimacy of either party's perspective, I was addressing the deadlock evidenced within this thread.


I addressed that deadlock, and asked a simple question that you at first answered reasonably from your informed position, your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

[One Above All]

ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

Fresh viewpoint from someone who has limited info (at best) regarding Jstwebbrowsing's posts.

your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

The way that you wrote it made it sound as if it was a suggestion. My apologies.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

Not really. I cursed for the simple fact that I wanted to.[1] I was not apologizing per se; merely trying (and failing, obviously) to point out that the curse wasn't to insult you, but that it was simply a part of the expression I used.

1.	Long story.

[kin hell]

ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

Fresh viewpoint from someone who has limited info (at best) regarding Jstwebbrowsing's posts.

 you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.

your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

The way that you wrote it made it sound as if it was a suggestion. My apologies.

...thanks but unnecessary mate, ....it was a suggestion, but one fully qualified by the preceding question.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

Not really. I cursed for the simple fact that I wanted to.[1] I was not apologizing per se; merely trying (and failing, obviously) to point out that the curse wasn't to insult you, but that it was simply a part of the expression I used.

1.	Long story.

understood     .....no harm no foul

[One Above All]

you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.

It wasn't an accident. I don't think that a one page thread qualifies you to make suggestions that other people haven't thought of already and dismissed for some reason.

[kin hell]

you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.

It wasn't an accident. I don't think that a one page thread qualifies you to make suggestions that other people haven't thought of already and dismissed for some reason.

That doesn't parse for me.

Do you really mean I cannot recognise an apparent deadlock in a thread, then ask a question on that thread, and hang a suggested solution predicated upon the reply to that question?

Please explain how I am unqualified to do that?

And your accrediting me mind reading abilities (in being able to discern what other people may or may not have already thought of and dismissed) while possibly flattering, is definitely ridiculous.

[One Above All]

Do you really mean I cannot recognise an apparent deadlock in a thread, then ask a question on that thread, and hang a suggested solution predicated upon the reply to that question?

No. I think that while your suggestions may seem good to you, other people already thought about them and dismissed them because they know more about Jstwebbrowsing's posting history than you do.

And your accrediting me mind reading abilities (in being able to discern what other people may or may not have already thought of and dismissed) while possibly flattering, is definitely ridiculous.

I'm not. The point is that (I think) any suggestions you make that haven't been posted already weren't posted for a reason that you're not aware of because you don't know enough about the subject.[1]
In short, all I'm saying is that I think you should learn more before making suggestions.

1.	This sentence seems grammatically incorrect, but I can't put my finger on it.

[kin hell]

...what don't you understand about the question mark?

?

can you not see that it answers your suggestion that I should learn more before suggesting?

I asked the question, as a method of learning, via the answer/s (that are implied as desired) by use of the question mark.

or is it that you don't understand the concept that the following suggestion was qualified by the preceding question?

[One Above All]

*headdesk*
You said it was also a suggestion... twice (I misread it the first time, so you pointed it out a second time). If you want to learn, there's nothing quite like doing it yourself by reading Jstwebbrowsing's posts. This thread is/was supposed to address the "Omen versus Jstwebbrowsing" "problem".

[kin hell]

*headdesk*
You said it was also a suggestion... twice (I misread it the first time, so you pointed it out a second time).

let me help you understand.

the question is posed.

Is it possible that X?

The question offers two possible answers   Yes or No.

Then the following suggestion that I made is fully predicated upon which of the two possible answers my original question received.

If the answer was No. Then my suggestion makes no sense whatsoever. It becomes instantly void.


So the only option that could possibly trigger any consideration of my suggestion is if the original question is answered with a Yes.


What don't you understand?


Your whole foray here regarding my post is based on me supposedly not having enough information on which to judge whether or not my suggestion is valid.
Therefore, so you say, I should not have made a suggestion.

What do you think the purpose of the question was?

Did it not immediately solicit that exact same information you've erroneously asserted I have not accessed before making my suggestions?

[One Above All]

My head is throbbing, so I'll just conclude with this:
If you want to make worthwhile suggestions, don't waste your time by waiting for us to answer your questions; do the research yourself. The information can be easily accessed and is also easily understood. There's no reason why you can't do the research first and make suggestions later.

[kin hell]

My head is throbbing, so I'll just conclude with this:
If you want to make worthwhile suggestions, don't waste your time by waiting for us to answer your questions; do the research yourself. The information can be easily accessed and is also easily understood. There's no reason why you can't do the research first and make suggestions later.

....you really can be a obdurate, manipulative, deliberately dumb, and pontificating dick at times just in order to have the last word.

Perhaps you should use a little intelligence and try and understand that the question allowed for a very easy and swift dismissal of my suggestion with the simplest of answers   ie:  No.

Surely the practise  of approaching the supposed authorities on the subject, (which is what my question did) is a standard research tool?
....and in this case an extremely efficient one where the authoritative summation can be provided with minimum fuss.

Simple no? 

 But you have to add personal commentary and direction don't you?

As you've arbitrarily assumed the authority to direct my behaviour, to so obviously pander to your equally obvious need to win with that parthian shot, let me reply in kind.

You are a judgemental curmudgeon, over endowed with a judgemental opinion that harshly judges others, but fails to exact any consistently rigorous and scrupulous accuracy and honesty from yourself.

If you think I am being harsh on calling you judgemental, just check your smiteful(sic) darwin records.   Oh yes you are the record holder. Congratulations.

And if you take umbrage at being called less than scrupulously honest in debate, please feel free to do the fucking research yourself.


 

[One Above All]

First of all, my head throbbing is unrelated to you. I mentioned it as a simple reason for wanting this discussion to end.

Now, I tried to provide constructive criticism by suggesting that you do the research before making suggestions. Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it. Compared to reading, it's a very slow process and you learn very little with only one question. That's why I mentioned those things before.

And now I have to go to school. If you want to keep discussing this, I suggest making a thread in the Chatter section or something. This thread has been derailed (and yes, I admit that this is my fault) long enough.

[Omen]

I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

I did not write those words to dehumanize you. I was telling you that it is possible to have civil intercourse and live on the same planet with theists, even when huge disagreements exist. If you took it as an insult of any sort, I apologize. Here I am, trying to ask people if there might be a way to be nicer to each other and accomplish more in our conversations, and I insult you in the process. Hopefully the answer isn't contained in my incompetence.

Where have I had uncivil discourse?

It's hard not to take it as insulting considering the previous post, the worst you can find me doing is implying someone is a sicko because they compare biblical slavery to raising their own children.  Regardless of that being name calling or not, it is a post selected out hundreds as if that is either the only example worth considering or the general overarching behavior you want to talk about.  Based on that, I am now supposedly cruel enough that the suggestion is that I would normally not help in an analogy where a poor old next door neighbor needs to be driven places regardless of his vindictive attitude towards others.

[Omen]

Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?

Well, to be fair "Hold him accountable for his words" is the final ambiguous product of hundreds of posts where someone equivocates in response to virtually ANY post that challenges him on specific claim or premise left unsupported, to the point where it becomes obscured.  It would of course sound vague and abstract, being disconnected from the constant original attempts to get JST to support a claim.  Needless to say JST has left hundreds of posts discarded for the simple fact that someone, regardless of it being me or not, came around and requested he support a particular claim or premise.  I'm just a convenient target now.

Goals are circumstantial at best, with no primary goal that needs to be achieved until you either know what you're dealing with or know how they are going to respond.  You should already be aware of the tendencies of theist who visit the boards who come here to simply make lists of things they believe, unconcerned by why anyone else should believe it or their own means to describe why they would believe it rationally.  I believe this would describe JST pretty well along with some deeper explanations I talked about here: ( http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22585.msg505008.html#msg505008 ) 

The problem with this kind of person, which tends towards the norm, is how do you respond?  Any kind of discussion on the merits of a religious claim are irrelevant, since this kind of person can and will define their belief or rationalize towards their belief in order to squirm around any issue.  All it does it take you back to the fact that they are literally making up their beliefs as they go along, unconcerned with whether or not their beliefs could reasonably be believed by anyone else or why they would initially believe them at all.  It is a dead end conversation, one where the theist is never taken to task and many of the atheist on this forum end up doing nothing but enabling the theist to confirm his own beliefs in a circular manner.  The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

I am being demonized because I type and post fast, but have done little else than what I described above.